Background: Hemorrhage control prior to shock onset is increasingly recognized as a time-critical intervention. Although tourniquets (TQs) have been demonstrated to save lives, less is known about the physiologic parameters underlying successful TQ application beyond palpation of distal pulses. The current study directly visualized distal arterial occlusion via ultrasonography and measured associated pressure and contact force. Methods: Fifteen tactical officers participated as live models for the study. Arterial occlusion was performed using a standard adult blood pressure (BP) cuff and a Combat Application Tourniquet Generation 7 (CAT7) TQ, applied sequentially to the left mid-bicep. Arterial flow cessation was determined by radial artery palpation and brachial artery pulsed wave doppler ultrasound (US) evaluation. Steady state maximal generated force was measured using a thin-film force sensor. Results: The mean (95% CI) systolic blood pressure (SBP) required to occlude palpable distal pulse was 112.9mmHg (109-117); contact force was 23.8N [Newton] (22.0-25.6). Arterial flow was visible via US in 100% of subjects despite lack of palpable pulse. The mean (95% CI) SBP and contact force to eliminate US flow were 132mmHg (127-137) and 27.7N (25.1-30.3). The mean (95% CI) number of windlass turns to eliminate a palpable pulse was 1.3 (1.0-1.6) while 1.6 (1.2-1.9) turns were required to eliminate US flow. Conclusions: Loss of distal radial pulse does not indicate lack of arterial flow distal to upper extremity TQ. On average, an additional one-quarter windlass turn was required to eliminate distal flow. Blood pressure and force measurements derived in this study may provide data to guide future TQ designs and inexpensive, physiologically accurate TQ training models.

Introduction:Tourniquets (TQs) save lives. Although military-approved TQs appear more effective than improvised TQs in controlling exsanguinating extremity hemorrhage, their bulk may preclude every day carry (EDC) by civilian lay-providers, limiting availability during emergencies.Study Objective:The purpose of the current study was to compare the efficacy of three novel commercial TQ designs to a military-approved TQ.Methods:Nine Emergency Medicine residents evaluated four different TQ designs: Gen 7 Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT7; control), Stretch Wrap and Tuck Tourniquet (SWAT-T), Gen 2 Rapid Application Tourniquet System (RATS), and Tourni-Key (TK). Popliteal artery flow cessation was determined using a ZONARE ZS3 ultrasound. Steady state maximal generated force was measured for 30 seconds with a thin-film force sensor.Results:Success rates for distal arterial flow cessation were 89% CAT7; 67% SWAT-T; 89% RATS; and 78% TK (H 0.89; P = .83). Mean (SD) application times were 10.4 (SD = 1.7) seconds CAT7; 23.1 (SD = 9.0) seconds SWAT-T; 11.1 (SD = 3.8) seconds RATS; and 20.0 (SD = 7.1) seconds TK (F 9.71; P <.001). Steady state maximal forces were 29.9 (SD = 1.2) N CAT7; 23.4 (SD = 0.8) N SWAT-T; 33.0 (SD = 1.3) N RATS; and 41.9 (SD = 1.3) N TK.Conclusion:All novel TQ systems were non-inferior to the military-approved CAT7. Mean application times were less than 30 seconds for all four designs. The size of these novel TQs may make them more conducive to lay-provider EDC, thereby increasing community resiliency and improving the response to high-threat events.

Introduction Limited information exists regarding the response of helicopter EMS programs to patients with known or suspected COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to determine changes in flight operations during the early stages of the pandemic. Methods Survey of American College of Emergency Physicians Air Medical Section was conducted between 5/13/2020 and 8/1/2020. COVID-19 prevalence was defined as high vs low based upon cases > 2500 or ≤ 2500. Results Of 48 respondents, the majority (89.6%) reported that their patient guidelines had changed due to COVID-19. 89.6% of programs reported transporting COVID-19 positive patients while 91.5% reported transporting persons under investigation (PUI). The majority of respondents reported additional training in COVID-19 airway management (79.2%) and PPE use (93.6%). Permitted aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) included BiPAP (40.4%) and high-flow nasal oxygen (66.0%). No difference in guideline changes, positive COVID-19/PUI transport restrictions, or permitted AGPs were noted between high and low prevalence settings. Conclusion COVID-19 has resulted in changes to HEMS guidelines regardless of local disease prevalence. The pandemic has persisted sufficiently long that data regarding the effectiveness of guideline changes should be analyzed. In the absence of definitive data, national best practices should be developed to guide COVID-19 HEMS transport.

Introduction:Incarcerated individuals represent a particularly vulnerable sector of society, with a disproportionate burden of drug use, mental health problems, and chronic illness. The purpose of this study was to perform a descriptive analysis of EMS response to detention facilities.Method:Retrospective review of EMS calls to detention facilities between 1/1/2002 and 12/31/2021 within our EMS system. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Student’s t-test. This study was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board.Results:3,126 requests for service occurred during the study period. Average patient age was 40.2 ± 13.3 years, compared with 54.0 ± 25.9 years for non-detention center calls (p < 0.001). The majority (80.8%) of patients were male. Mean scene time was 14:13 ± 7:49 minutes, compared with 12:04 ± 12:27 minutes (p < 0.01) for non-detention center calls. The most common complaints were chest pain (15.6%), trauma (13.6%), seizure (11.7%), behavioral (9.2%), and overdose (4.7%); OB requests accounted for 5.8% of calls for female patients. Most calls (86.0%) to detention centers involved incarcerated individuals. Four percent of patients refused treatment; 27.8% of these patients were still transported. One hundred and eight patients were identified by EMS as not needing transport. Consent for treatment/transport by the patient was documented in 5.2% of charts.Conclusion:Within our 911 service area, calls to detention facilities are not uncommon, predominantly involve incarcerated individuals, and are primarily due to chest pain, trauma, or seizures. Consent for treatment/transport was not documented in most EMS encounters. Further study is needed to better understand the health care needs of these patients, including ability to consent and access to chronic medications.